Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy

A new Letter from the Chairman on the Roberts Space Industries website talks more about the future of Star Citizen now that they've stopped laying out additional stretch goals and talks to backers about their support of the project (for the record, the space combat game has now surpassed the $73 million mark). Chris Roberts also addresses a recent controversy within the game's community over "Rental Equipment Credits," a complicated system of equipment rentals for the game. There's an article criticizing this concept on Ten Ton Hammer that helps an outsider understand what's up with this system, and why this may raise concerns, saying: "you cannot earn REC and then purchase any items or equipment in Arena Commander right now or in this upcoming update permanently. You can, instead, earn REC to rent equipment and ships to try before you buy or, if you are committed enough, to keep playing with as long as you can continue to earn enough REC to pay the rental fee every 7 non-consecutive days of playing." In his post, Roberts acknowledges the controversy, though it's not certain how it will be dealt with:
Finally, I know that everyone is expecting me to talk more about Rental Equipment Credits. I took part in the heated discussion over the weekend and one of our priorities this week was clarifying some of the confusion about the system. I don’t have much to add right now, but I do want to stress: we asked for your feedback because we genuinely wanted it. A sincere thank you to everyone who provided that feedback. I’ll stress: we’re going to create a system that’s fun, not one that hurts players. Like everything else in Star Citizen, we will balance and expand our system to that goal once it launches until it meets our vision, and we will not settle for less.
View : : :
88.
 
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
Feb 22, 2015, 10:48
88.
Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy Feb 22, 2015, 10:48
Feb 22, 2015, 10:48
 
The difference is smoking doesn't give them an advantage over you does it? The problem with this model is its classist. We have enough of that bullshit IRL the last place we want to see it is in games. Games are supposed to be fair otherwise what's the point in playing? It's like you and I starting a game of Monopoly when you already own half the properties with hotels on them. You've already got disposable income that most people don't, isn't that enough? Do you have to constantly lord it over those who don't? How much is enough? How many yachts can you water-ski behind, Gordon?

It doesn't give as much of an advantage as you'd think, maybe at first when the game comes out. Those of us who can't play for 20+ hours per week yet have the disposable income to spend may have a bit of an advantage at first, but that will dissapear. And why are we always pitting everyone against each other, you can loan your ships, you'll need a crew to more effectively run your ship. Real players will always be better than AI in this case. Can't afford more than the starter ship yet your friend or corp mate has a plethora of multi-crew ships, then take a spot on his ship or ask to borrow one of his, I don't see how this is a bad thing at all. And it just so happens pledging for ships is how this game is being funded, and contrary to what most of you think or say it seems to be working out quite well.

I'll loan you a ship when the game is out Cutter, pick one, 890, Freelancer MIS, Gladius, Super Hornet, Constellation Phoenix, Reclaimer, Mustang, Retaliator, Redeemer, Carrack, pick one, they're all insured. There's no way I can fly them all at once.
Date
Subject
Author
71.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
98.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
77.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
104.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
106.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
108.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
85.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
86.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
87.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
 88.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
         Re: Star Citizen at $73M; Rental Equipment Credits Controversy
90.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
91.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
92.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
89.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
102.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
111.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
103.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
107.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015
112.
Feb 22, 2015Feb 22 2015